Because we tried a bunch of ways to allocate lands over the course of human history. The current system (where you pay money, acquire it peacefully and the government backs your "property rights" with all the guns) seems the best among alternatives (like violence, ceding it to people who live somewhere for X years etc).

Do you have a better alternative to allocate land (or any other asset)? Please share so that we can discuss.

Public housing works quite well in Vienna.[1]

But my point was not necessarily that no one should own land. Another interpretation of my question — "Why don't these people own the land they live on?" — would be, why isn't there land around that they can afford to buy and give themselves security? And that has various types of answers, some related the kinds of opportunity in the economy that would give them more income, some about how we can change the supply of housing.

Here are some more developed thoughts on the subject from someone more expert than I am: [2]

[1] https://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/case-for-pub...

[2] https://danielkayhertz.com/2017/05/11/what-is-a-left-approac...

I find the argument in favor of sunset towns in your second link rather disturbing.

The article about Vienna shows that the forces of supply and demand work very well, given an adequate supply. That seems very instructive.